U.S. stocks closed higher on Tuesday, with the Nasdaq ending at a record and major indexes overall closing out a strong October as quarterly results continued to support markets ahead of the conclusion of the Federal Reserve on Wednesday.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished up 28 points, or 0.1%, at 23,377, the S&P 500 index ended about 0.1% at 2,575. The Nasdaq Composite Index however, marked fresh history, closing at an all-time high, its 62nd for 2017, matching its longest such streak since 1980. The index closed up 0.4% at 6,727, outperforming its equity peers.

You two need to TROLL better and stop drinking the kool-aid. Here is Obama's work his last two years:

Curious that you only show 2 of Obama's 8 years as President. Why is that?

Because it took him the first 5 years just to get back to break even.

If Obama's economy was so wonderful, why did the stock market flat line the last two years when QE was turned off Troll?

Elementary my dear Joey.Obama prevented a depression, which led to the stock market recovering in the first 5 years or so.Obama failed to engineer a full recovery, which led to a flat stock market in the last 2 years of his Presidency.When Trump was elected, the stock market took off like a rocket because Wall Street knew a full recovery followed by a boom was inevitable.

When Trump was elected, the stock market took off like a rocket because Wall Street knew a full recovery followed by a boom was inevitable.

That's absolutely right because people who play the stock market always make money. They always know when a boom economy is inevitable.

Not always. When Trump was elected it was pretty obvious. 8 years of a socialist leaning President, followed by Trump who inspires and promotes business was a no brainer. The fact is, wealth creators for the country prefer Republican policies. Welfare recipients and socialists prefer Democratic policies.

Then how come the stock market has overwhelmingly favored Democratic presidents for 50 years? It's not even close.

Don't think that is completely accurate. Nevertheless, democratic Presidents do end up getting the benefits of Republican Presidents. e.g. the economic policies of Reagan while taking an initial hit, ended up setting the stage for economic prosperity for decades. Clinton, one of my favorite Presidents, did benefit from Reagonomics.

Nevertheless, democratic Presidents do end up getting the benefits of Republican Presidents.

You mean like George Bush leaving Obama with the benefit of a massive collapse in 2008 and Ronald Reagan leaving Bush Senior with the benefit of the 1992 recession? I think you have a very strange theory that doesn't line up at all with the real world.

If you want to go back further, the great depression was after 9 years of a Republican government and strongly Republican polices like tax cutting and deregulation. The more you look at history, the less likely it seems that Republican policies do much of anything except wreck the economy.

I don't want to belabor this point but is there a single Republican president in the last 100 years that didn't end with a recession after 8 years?

Eisenhower ended up with a recession in 1958 and again in 1960. Nixon left us with the oil crisis and hyperinflation and a 1973-1974 stock market crash. Reagan/Bush ended with a recession in 1992. Bush Jr. ended up with a massive economic collapse. Who's left, am I missing anyone?

U.S. stock-market indexes advanced further into record territory on Wednesday as investors cheered strong corporate results and shrugged off a delay in the unveiling of House Republicans’ tax-cut plan.

Markets were also buoyed by a rebound in private-sector employment last month as employers added 235,000 jobs. An upbeat set of manufacturing data from China, as well as a rally in oil prices, which continued to push above a two-year high supported global equity markets.

The upbeat mood comes after U.S. stocks closed higher on Tuesday, closing out October on a positive note, with their biggest monthly percentage gains since February.

They are all from failed States like California. Full of bums, losers and free loaders.

The most prosperous state by far, the one that generates so much income that it's like number 7 or number 8 on a list of international GDP, one so desired that housing prices are some of the highest in the world, is a failed state in your opinion? Do we share the same language?

Hmmm, the last stock market crash and recession came after the Dems took back the majority in the Senate and House in 2006.

Sorry but this was a discussion of presidential administrations. That was what Strategist was talking about. I don't know why you brought up congress but it isn't related to the conversation. Anyway I have no idea what you think a congress blocked by a president is supposed to do that makes an economy bad. Maybe you can clarify that.

I think California is now #6. Inspite of having to feed the most Welfare Queens in the nation.

Well you called it a failed state so your definition of a failed state includes the most prosperous and desired state in the country. Welfare may or may not be part of California's success but if that's your only criteria, I think it's unforgivably narrow.

I think California is now #6. Inspite of having to feed the most Welfare Queens in the nation.

Well you called it a failed state so your definition of a failed state includes the most prosperous and desired state in the country. Welfare may or may not be part of California's success but if that's your only criteria, I think it's unforgivably narrow.

It's a question of "context" my dear friend. We may be a great state, but in some ways we have failed miserably. We could be an even greater state with lower state taxes.

It's a question of "context" my dear friend. We may be a great state, but in some ways we have failed miserably. We could be an even greater state with lower state taxes.

Maybe or maybe not. This is a gigantic assumption on your part because California's success is an objective fact. Therefore the entire burden of proof, that California would be even better with lower taxes and less welfare, is on you. You must prove it and you can't simply assert it's true and you certainly have no right to claim this is a failed state.

Liberals would argue high taxes and social programs are a big part of what makes California's economy so strong. They have a great case considering how much wealth is created here and how many people are bidding to live here. California's economy is far better than so called right to work states run by Republicans and this is something you haven't addressed either. I would like to see an actual argument from the right some day and I'm not seeing it.

The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The
conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons,
anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the
housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play
it.115 pages, $12.50